The main legal point established in the judgment is the significance of the date of institution of the suit in determining the applicability of relevant legal provisions and the rights of the parties involved.

Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The second appellant is the karnavan of a Malabar tarwad.

2. On the 8th January, 1906, the jenmi, who is now represented by the first respondent, executed in favour of the tarwad of the appellant a kanom mortgage in respect of 58 parcels of agricultural land. On the 6th January, 1925, the jenmi executed a melcharth in favour of the second respondent, who on the 4th February, 1929, filed a suit in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Calicut to enforce the redemption of the kanom. There were 136 defendants, the karnavan, 22 other members of the tarwad and 113 tenants. The contesting defendants pleaded that the Subordinate Court had no jurisdiction because the plaintiff had overvalued the property and that on a true valuation it should be filed in. the Court of the District Munsif of Chowghat. After inquiry the Subordinate Judge held that the allegation of overvaluation was well founded and by an order dated the 4th March, 1930, directed that the plaint be returned to the second respondent for presentation to the District Munsifs Court. The plaintiff appealed to the District Judge of South Malabar, who came to the conclusion that the suit had not been overvalued and accordingly directed the Subordinate Judge to hear and decide it. The contesting defendants then appealed to this Court, and Jackson, J., who heard this appeal came to the conclusion that the District Judge had erred and that the order of the Subordinate Judge should be restored. In pursuance of the order of the learned Judge the second respondent applied for the return of the plaint and it was handed to him by the Subordinate Judge on the 31st March, 1932. On the 11th August, 1932, the second respondent presented the plaint to the District Munsif.

3. In the meantime the Malabar Tenancy Act, 1929 had been passed and came into force on the 1st December, 1930, but in Section 1 (3) there is a proviso in these terms:

Provided that in all suits for eviction instituted after the 30th July, 1929, and pending in the Court of first instance on the date when the Act comes into force, which would have been governed by the provisions of this Act had it been in force at the time of their institution, the rights and obligations of the parties concerned shall be regulated by the provisions of this Act.

4. By virtue of Sections 22 and 23 of the Act a kanomdar is now in a position to apply for a renewal of his kanom.

5. On the 29th March, 1933, the appellant as the karnavan of the tarwad in whose favour the kanom of the 8th January, 1906, had been executed applied to the District Munsif of Chowghat for the renewal of the kanom. The second respondent objected. He relied on the proviso in Section 1 (3) of the Act, as the suit instituted by him for the redemption of the kanom was in effect a suit for eviction. The validity of this objection depends on the date on which the suit was instituted. If it was instituted on the 4th February, 1929, the date on which the plaint was presented to the Subordinate Judge, the appellant was not entitled to apply for a renewal of the kanom, but if the date of institution is the 11th August, 1932, when the plaint was presented to the District Munsif of Chowghat the proviso will apply and the appellants application for a renewal of the kanom will lie.

6. The District Munsif held that the suit must be deemed to have been filed on the date the plaint was presented to the Subordinate Judge of Calicut, namely, the 4th February, 1929, and accordingly he dismissed the application of the appellant. The appellant appealed to the Subordinate Judge of Ottapalam, who agreed with the District Munsif. The appellant then appealed to this Court, but again without success. The appeal was heard by King, J., who agreed with the Subordinate Judges conclusion but on grounds somewhat different from those stated by the Subordinate Judge. The learned Judge having given a certificate under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent the present appeal h